RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02201
            INDEX CODE:  110.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under honorable conditions, discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made mistakes because  he  was  suffering  from  depression.   He
requests an honorable discharge so that he can receive his G.I. Bill
benefits and get an education to better himself.

Applicant’s complete submissions are attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Jan 96, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

Applicant received two  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs)  with
overall ratings of “5.”

On 21 Jan 99, after being admitted to  the  Keesler  Medical  Center
Inpatient Mental Health Unit for evaluation  and  treatment  due  to
substandard conduct at  work,  inconsistent  behavior,  and  concern
about  possible  threat  to  himself   or   others,   the   Clinical
Psychologist found that the  applicant  met  the  criteria  for  the
following diagnoses according  to  the  Diagnostic  and  Statistical
Manual for Psychiatry, Fourth Edition (DSM IV):

      Axis  I:     History  of  Major  Depression  Disorder,  Single
Episode, without psychosis, now in partial remission.

                 Alcohol Abuse

      Axis II:   Dependent traits

      Axis III:  Non-contributory

      Axis IV:   Occupational and relational problems

      Axis V:    GAF:  Currently = 65  currently,  Highest  in  past
year = 90, Lowest in past year = 50

The Clinical Psychologist recommended the applicant be  returned  to
his command with the following recommendations:

             a.    Precautios:   Remove  him  from  Security  Police
augmentee status while he receives treatment for  alcohol  and  mood
problems.  After reasonable trail of treatment  (three  months),  he
should be reevaluated before he is placed on augmentee status again.

             b.    His  diagnoses  and  history   do   not   warrant
recommendation  for  administrative  separation  for  mental  health
reasons at this time; however, if he receives treatment and  is  not
able to change his behavior, becomes a risk to himself or others, or
continues to be disruptive at work,  administrative  separation  for
mental health reasons would be warranted.

            c.   On 6 Jan 99, a psychiatrist  recommended  continued
Zoloft for the applicant.   The  Clinical  Psychologist  recommended
continued monitoring and follow-up for his antidepressants.

             d.    Applicant  should   attend   regular   outpatient
appointments with the  Substance  Abuse  counselor.   His  case  has
already been discussed with a counselor and applicant  is  scheduled
to see the counselor on 22 Jan 99.  If applicant cannot comply  with
outpatient treatment,  inpatient  rehabilitative  treatment  may  be
warranted.

            e.   Applicant should attend regular  outpatient  mental
health  appointments  to  learn  better  management  of  his  moods;
particularly his anger and irritability.  Applicant’s case has  been
discussed with the Columbus Social Worker and he is scheduled for an
appointment on 22 Jan 99.

The above actions taken and recommendations  made  by  the  Clinical
Psychologist were discussed with  the  applicant,  who  acknowledged
that he understood them by his signature.

On 25 Jan 99, applicant was notified of his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for disobeying a lawful order
on 17 Dec 98 and 17 Jan 99, and for being drunk  and  disorderly  on
17 Jan 99.  On 28 Jan 99, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant
waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested  a  personal
appearance and submitted a written presentation.

On 4 Feb 99, he was found guilty by his commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Reduction from the grade of senior airman  to
the grade of airman first class, forfeitures of $300 per  month  for
two months (reduction and forfeitures suspended until 3 Aug 99),  30
days of extra duty and a reprimand.  Applicant did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

On  17 Feb  99,  applicant  was  notified  that  his  commander  was
recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for   Minor
Disciplinary Infractions.  The reasons for the  commander’s  actions
were as follows:

            a.   On or  about  8 Jun  98,  after  being  told  by  a
supervisor to complete his checklist before  leaving  for  the  day,
applicant signed off the checklist without completing the  items  on
the checklist.  He had to be called back to  work  to  complete  the
tasks  on  the  checklist.   For  this,  he  received  a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC) for dereliction of duty.

            b.   On or about  29 Jun  98,  he  failed  to  obtain  a
complete set of vital signs on a patient which was part of his duty.
 The patient later made  a  complaint  about  his  failure  to  take
complete vital signs.  For this, he received an LOC for  failing  to
perform his duties.

            c.   On or about 17 Dec 98, he again failed to obtain  a
complete set of vital signs on a patient.  For this, he was verbally
counseled by his supervisor.

            d.   On or about 21 Dec 98, he again failed to obtain  a
complete set of vital signs on a patient.  For this, he was verbally
counseled by his supervisor.

            e.   On  or  about  14 Jan  99,  he  used  inappropriate
language toward another senior airman who was  checking  applicant’s
test results on an anaphylactic shock test.  In addition,  applicant
threw his test on the floor.  For this, he was verbally counseled by
his supervisor.

            f.   On or about 14 Jan 99,  he  left  a  staff  meeting
without permission and did not return.  When asked why he  left,  he
responded that he had “nothing to contribute…and it’s just  stupid.”
For this, he was verbally counseled by his supervisor.

            g.   On or about 15 Jan 99, during  a  discussion  about
obtaining complete sets of vital signs  from  patients,  he  angrily
picked a picture frame off the wall, held it in a “white  knuckle(d)
grasp,” turned red, and began shaking.  The individual applicant was
talking to stated that he felt threatened by  applicant’s  behavior.
For this, he was verbally counseled by his supervisor.

            h.    On  or  about  17 Jan  99,  he  drank  alcohol  in
violation of an order  not  to  drink  by  a  superior  commissioned
officer.  His blood alcohol level was 0.235.  That same evening  and
early morning, he was also drunk and disorderly.  For this  and  for
the misconduct listed in paragraph c. above, he received nonjudicial
punishment under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ).

The commander further stated that before recommending the discharge,
the applicant received numerous administrative counselings  for  his
continued failure to  perform  his  assigned  duties.   After  these
counselings, the applicant reacted  in  an  angry  manner  and  then
reverted back to not doing his assigned duties.   He  also  received
numerous counselings for his anger and for  making  threats  against
others but continued with that type of misconduct as well.   He  was
sent to Mental Health counseling, anger management  counseling,  and
alcohol counseling.  He was also placed in the “We Care” program  to
see if that would help him overcome some personal  problems  he  was
having (e.g., divorce, etc.).  Notwithstanding  all  of  the  above-
mentioned  efforts,  the  applicant  continued  to  defy  authority.
Therefore, the  commander  gave  him  nonjudicial  punishment  under
Article 15, UCMJ, and started discharge action.

On 22 Feb 99, after consulting with counsel, applicant  submitted  a
written presentation.

On 23 Feb 99, the Deputy Staff Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  reviewed  the
case and found that the applicant’s file was legally  sufficient  to
support discharge with  a  general  discharge  characterization  but
without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The
Deputy SJA found the  notification  letter  incorrectly  stated  the
applicant failed to take vital signs  on  21 Dec  98;  however,  the
applicant was on leave that day.  The Deputy SJA indicated that this
was  an  administrative  error  which  did  not  effect  the   legal
sufficiency of the  package.   He  recommended  that  the  commander
direct that the applicant be separated from the  Air  Force  with  a
general  discharge  without  the  opportunity  for  P&R.   The   SJA
concurred with the Deputy SJA’s recommendation.

On 5 Mar 99, the applicant was discharged under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct) with a general, under honorable conditions,
discharge in the grade of senior airman.  He  was  credited  with  3
years, 2 month, and 5 days of active service.

On 16 Feb 00, the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied
applicant’s request for upgrade of discharge (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and indicated that  the  discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation at the time of applicant’s discharge  from  active  duty.
Further, the discharge action  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority and he  was  provided  full  administrative  due
process.  His records indicate his  military  service  was  properly
reviewed and appropriate action was  taken.   DPPRS  recommends  his
records remain unchanged and that his request be denied.

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
17 Nov 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.

On 14 Dec 00, applicant’s mother provided a personal statement which
is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.   After  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of   record   and   applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that his general  discharge  should
be upgraded to honorable.  His contentions are duly noted;  however,
evidence has not been presented  to  show  that  his  discharge  was
improper or contrary to the provisions of the directive under  which
it was effected.  Furthermore,  the  reasons  discharge  proceedings
were initiated against the applicant  are  well  documented  in  the
available record.  The characterization of  his service was based on
the circumstances which existed at the time and  resulted  from  his
own misconduct.  Hence, the applicant has provided no evidence which
would lead us to believe that the cited reasons for  the  separation
proceedings  were  erroneous,  that  his  substantial  rights   were
violated,  or  that  his  commanders  abused   their   discretionary
authority.  Therefore, we conclude that no  basis  exists  to  grant
favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________








THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission
of newly discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 February 2001, under the provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                  Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Oct 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 16 Feb 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Oct 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Nov 00.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant’s mother, dated 14 Dec 00.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair